The thing is, persecuting some piracy but not all is part of a complete price discrimination model. The idea is that the marginal cost of a copy of windows (or

The thing is, persecuting some piracy but not all is part of a complete price discrimination model. The idea is that the marginal cost of a copy of windows (or a electronic copy of a book) is zero. If the end user is unable to pay for a copy, it's definitely better for Microsoft (and, I believe, better for the publisher and author) for that user to get a free copy, understand it, and contribute to the reputation of the product as "the one to use" than for that user to use another alternate product. Where would Microsoft be if all the poor people just used Linux? in a world of hurt, I think. I believe the same could be said for book publishers and authors. The problem, from the point of view of those trying to make money off this zero marginal cost good, is that if it's just free, many people who could pay for it would take it for free. This is where enforcement comes in (and why it's in the interest of publishing companies to keep the penalties civil rather than criminal) If I have no money, generally, I'm going to be a lot less concerned about people suing me. You can't get blood from a stone. On the other hand, once I have some assets, suddenly the idea that you could take them away is a big deal, and maybe paying out a few dollars for insurance make sense. Now, obviously, suing a poor person is still a pain in the ass for the poor person, so you can't sue /everyone/ who pirates your work, but for those with assets, just suing some can get the fear juices running enough that they pay for nearly all their software. The IRS uses a very similar model; they trust you to calculate and pay the correct taxes, and then they check some small percentage of returns, and heavily punish people who cheat.